The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-12-07


right OF each citizen TO anufacture intoxicating
liquors for his own a beverage were rec
ognzed. Such right does not inhere in citI-
zenship. nor can it be said that the government
interferes with or impairs any ones Constitu-
tional rights of liberty of property when is
determines that the manufacture and sale OF III.
toxicating drinks for individual use as a bever-
age are. or NAV become, hurtful to society and
TO every member of It, and ia. therefore. bust
ness in which no one NAV lawfully engage. This
conclusion is unavoidable, unless the fourteenth
amendment of the Constitution takes from the
States OF the Union those powers of police that
were reserved at the time the original Constitu-
ton was adopted.
But this court has declared. upon full consid-
GRAFTON. in Barber vs. Connolly t113 U. s, 81,
that the fourteenth amendment had such
effect. After observing. among other things.
that that amendment forbade the arbitrary
deprivation of life or liberty. and the arbitrary
spoliation of property. and secured equal pro-
lection to ell under like circumstances, in re-
spect AS we'll TO their personal and civil rights as
to their acquisition aud enjoyment of property,
the court in that case said:
'But neither the amendment-broad and compre
signed to interfere with the power of the state some
times termed its police power to prescribe reg
cation and good order of the people, and to egslate
to increase the Industries OF the State develop
its resources and add to its wealth and prosperity
Undoubtedly the State, when providing by
LEGISLATION for the protection of the public
health. the public morals, the public safety,
is subject to the paramount authority of the
violate rights secured or guaranteed by that
instrument, interfere with the execution of
the powers confded to the general governments.
Henderson vs.. Mayor of New York, 92 u. S.
259; Railroad Com pauy Husen, 95 i'd. 465;
New Orleans Gas-lieht COMPANY vs.. Louisiana
Light Company. lie I'd. 100; Walling Michi-
gan, 116 id., 446: Yick Wo VS.. Hopkins. 118 i'd,
$50: Morgan's Steamship Company vs. Louis
iana Board of Health, id 455
Upon this ground-if we do net misappre-
bend the position of defendants-it is commended
hat he md nriu ciD al of faar
as beverage; their respective breweries
were erected when il was lawful TO engage in
the manufacture of bser for every purpose; as
such establishments will become of no value
property, or, a. least. will be very materially
diminished in value, if not employed in the
manufacture of beer, for every purpose; the
prohibition upon their being so employed is.
in effect. taking of property for public
use without compensation, and conse-
without due process of law. In other words,
although the State, in the exercise of her police
powers. may la wfully prohibit the manufacture
and sale, within her limits. of intoxicating liq-
uors to be used a beverage. legislation hav-
ing that object in view cannot be enforced
against those who. at the time, happen TO own
property the chief value of which consists in its
fitness for such manufacturing purposes unless
compensation is first made to them on account
Of the dimnution in the value of their property
resulting from such prohibitory enactmenss.
This interpre tation OF the fourteenth amend
ment is inadmssible. Il cam OF be supposed
that the States intended by adopting that
amsndment to impose restraint upon the exer-
else OF their powers of mere police.
"In respect to contracts the obligations of
which are protected against State legislation,
this court has said
1.-THE constitutional prohibition upon State laws i'm
pairing the obligation of contract does the
of the State to prote ct the public health the
aber msv be- IN the at Of or ene
tract Rights and privileges arising from contracts
lection OF the public health the public morals. and
the public safety in the same sense and to the
ewned By e~
Orleans Gas Company VS.. Louisiana Light Company.
lis, q. s., 65o-672.)
so in Stone vs. Mississippi (1o2. u. S, SIG,
where the Constitution was involved against the
repeal by the State of q charter granted to
private corporation to conduct a lottery and for
which that corporation paid to the State val
liable consideration 10 money, the court said:
'No legislature bargain away the public health
or the publ Q morals. The people themselves
cannot do it. much less their servants. Government
is organized with view to their preservation and
divest itself of the power provide for
again. in Butchers Union Compauyvs Cres-
cent CITY company III, q. s. 1911. it said
that the State could not, by any contract, limit
the exercises of her power to the prejudice of
the public health and the public morals.
TIE principle that no person shall be ee-
prived of life. liberty or property without due
process of law was embodied in the constitu-
tons of nearly all, il not all. of the several
States at she time Of the adoption of the four
teenth amendment 1t has never been regarded
as incompatible with the principle, equally vital
because essential to the peace and safety of So
ciety. that all property in this country is held
under the implied obligation that the owners
use of it shall not be injurious to the equal
joyment of others having an equal right to the
eniovm.ns of their proper.y. nor injurious to
the rights of the community beer Company
vs.. Massachusetts. 81, .. s., 50; Patterson VS..
Kentucky. 81, U. S. sol; Commonwealth vs. Al
ger, Cush. So
IAN illustration of this doctrine is given in
Patterson VS.. Kentucky. The question there
was to the validity Of a statute Of Kentucky,
enacted in 1874, i'm posing penalty unon any
one selling. or offering for sale. oils and fluids,
the product of coal. petroleum or other btumin-
Gus substances which did not burn or ignite at q
temperature of leo degrees Fahrenheit and up
ward. Patterson having sold, within that COM
q certain oil, for which letters
patent were issned IN 1867. but which did not
come up TO the standard required by said statute.
and having been indicted therefore, disputed
the States authority TO prevent or obstrucs the
exercise of that right.
''This court upheld tho legislation of Ken
lucky upon the ground that. while the State
could not imrair the exclusive right of the pat
entee, of his assignee. in the discovery de-
scribed in the letters patent, the tangible prop
erty. the fruit of the discovery. was not beyond
control In the exercise of her police powers 1t
was said:
'By the settled doctrines of this court the police
e1tenas 70 tee proe,tlon OF the lives the health
and the property of the community against the nuri
Gus exercise by citizen of his rights. State
legislation strictly and eetimately for police pur
poses does not ntrench authority which has
been confined. expressly or by implication to the
tionai government. The kentucky stanIte under
animation anifestly belongs to that class of legis
ton 1t is in the best sense mere police regulation,
deemed essential TO the protection of the lives and
property of citizens.
'Referring to the numerous decisions OF this
court guarding the powers of Congress to regu-
late commerce against encroachmept under the
guise of State regulations, established for the
purpose and with the effect of DESTROYING or i'm
pairing rights secured by the Constitution, it
further said:
at has, nevertheless with marked tistinctness and
al 4hn
the fundamental conditions of civil society of uphold
ing State police regulations which enacted in
good faith, and had appropriate and direct connection
with that protection to life. health and property
which each State owes to her citizens.
See. also, United States VS.. Dewitt 20 Wall.
AZ, license tax cases Is, i'd, 1921 Pervear vs.
lid. 475)
Another decision very much in point upon
this branch of the case is Fertilizng COMPANY
Va. Hyde Park (97 U. 5. 659, 667l also decided
after the adoption of the fourteenth amend
ment. The court there sustained tha validity